Introduction
Organizations have evolved from the beginning of human civilization, with some organizations rising to stardom and others, for one reason or another, either rise and drop or cease to exist along their success journey. Fundamentally, organizations have been essential in meeting human demand, from basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter to secondary needs such as luxury or improving the overall quality of life. While the success of an organization depends on structure, strategies, leadership, communication channel, and other attributes of success, different organizations adopt a unique way of utilizing resources and exploring opportunities. For instance, two organizations, Google and Microsoft, even though both are tech-based, have different success story that stems from different aspects, such as organizational culture and structure. This research aims to develop a comparative case study based on the success story of Google and Microsoft while focusing on the similarities and differences of their line of operation.
Organizational Structure and Culture for Both Organizations
Organizational culture refers to how employees behave regarding interpersonal relations, while the organizational structure is the outline of workflow aimed at archiving specific organizational goals. According to Isac et al. (2021), Microsoft has a divisional, product-type organizational structure; each division deals with specific goods and services. On the hand, Leite et al. (2020) confirm that Google uses a cross-functional organizational structure, which involves the teamwork of specialists with different skill sets working on one project. However, both organizations are similar in terms of organizational structure since they are decentralized. Therefore, decision-making shifts to specific teams within the organization.
The organizational structure at Google and Microsoft allows a culture of innovation, creativity, and openness since the central team of leaders or the Chief Executive Officers (CEO) is not autonomous. Isac et al. (2021) affirm that a strong organizational culture is reflected in the level of employee performance and satisfaction. However, considering the fact that both Google and Microsoft are both successful technology companies, it is hard to point out the difference as to which company has a superior organizational culture compared to the other.
Mode of Communication Adopted by Both Organizations and How Employees Interact With Each Other
Effective communication within an organization contributes to the ultimate success of the company. According to Kollstrøm (2023), Microsoft uses Yammer, a social networking platform Microsoft SharePoint developed as a communication channel. Therefore, events, leadership team meetings, and any changes are communicated through Yammer to the employees across the board. On the contrary, according to Lissillour & Sahut (2022), staff from Google stated that they use emails most of the time to communicate. However, since both companies are built by employees in teams, one similarity in communication is verbal team communication or one-on-one communication.
The Leadership and Management Styles in Both Companies
Like any other organization, the Leaders and management style of both Google and Microsoft significantly impact their success. According to Dewar et al. (2022), Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, a non-founder, used empathy as a leadership trait to take the company milestone further, asserting that humble leadership is critical for the team’s high performance. On the other side, Gorwa & Ash (2020) asserts that Google’s chief executive testified to using democracy and transparency as attributes to enhance their leadership quality, emphasizing the intrinsic significance of employees. However, looking at both leadership styles, one similarity is that both companies are flexible in management, which means both leaders consider their employees and value their well-being and job satisfaction.
How Organizational Culture, Structure, and Management Style Relates to Their Success
The corporation between employers and employees is a key determinant of success since their interaction determines the fundamental aspects of organizational structure, culture, and management. Therefore, the structure, talent, and behavior manifested within Google or Microsoft will construe to the measure of their accumulated success. According to Alblooshi et al. (2021), leadership styles significantly influence organizational innovation by determining organizational climate, leaders’ and workers’ behavior, along with other organizational aspects such as knowledge sharing and learning. Since Google encourages innovations, unprecedented projects such as Google Maps have come to life; today, a considerable population use Google Maps to find directions by connecting them to the real-time Global Position System (GPS) on their mobile device or automobiles.
On the other hand, Microsoft is famous for its software products, such as the Windows operating system. According to Acs et al. (2021), Microsoft is reported to have launched Windows 1.0 for personal computers. Windows 1.0 has improved features that will change the digital platform or economy. Moreover, such innovations contribute to digital revolutions, enhancing overall human performance. Additionally, Satya Nadella emphasized traits such as empathy; according to Kock et al. (2019), empathetic leaders offer emotional support that, in return, promotes employee job satisfaction. Through empathetic language, leaders can nature employees’ behavior and help them attain a work-life balance since the level of being overwhelmed is relative to when they work with unempathetic leaders.
For organizations like Google and Microsoft to thrive in the technology industry for such an extended period, they have transcended most external business factors that appear challenging to other organizations. According to Duchek (2020), successive resilience stages, such as anticipation, coping, and adaptation, determine an organization’s future success. Both Google and Microsoft exhibit a decentralized organizational structure; the benefit of a decentralized system is that the decision-making process is streamlined since team leaders can make and implement decisions on behalf of the chief executive officers.
Therefore, decentralization enhances adaptability to changing external business environments since each department can adjust and make changes without a lengthy paperwork process from the central authority. Duchek emphasizes that resilience is a final result when evaluating how an organization went through a crisis and attained sustainability out of contingencies. Therefore, it is safe that both Google and Microsoft are resilient companies that have contributed to their overall success. For instance, when other companies were forced to close down during the Covid-19 pandemic, Google and Microsoft offered their consumers opportunities to work remotely.
Most of the global population interacted set meetings, and worked from their computers. According to Lal et al. (2021), Microsoft managed their teams remotely with the help of technology; they used online tools to collaborate and communicate efficiently with team members. Therefore, getting through the coronavirus crisis was a sign of resilience for Microsoft and can form part of its massive success in the tech industry. On the other hand, Google was also open during the pandemic, meaning they also adapted to the changes caused by the virus effectively. Finally, a structure that enhances decentralization, an organizational culture that promotes teamwork and positive interpersonal relation, and management skills that enhance job satisfaction are all part of Google and Microsoft’s success story.
The Human Resource Strategic Planning, recruitment, and Selection Strategy, Performance/Talent Management Strategy of Both Organizations
From an organizational structure standpoint, Google and Microsoft’s human resource departments are employee-centered. According to Helmold et al. (2021), Microsoft’s human resource mission is to empower its workforce to archive more. While integrating elements such as inclusivity, diversity, and other forms of human relations, talents are discovered, natured, and empowered by the company. According to Ly-Le, (2022), tech companies such as Google and Microsoft have historically had a gender gap since most tech companies do not consider gender diversity a priority. Ly-Le affirms that the tech companies’ reluctance to pursue a diverse workforce is the fear of being left behind in the global innovation race. However, the percentage of female employees at Google and Microsoft has increased. Therefore, there is proof of integrating gender diversity into tech companies’ new talent recruitment process.
Suggestions and Recommendations for Both Organizations
Microsoft and Google are both successful companies in their line of business; they have proven to have a solid organizational culture, structure, and management style and required talents to dominate the tech industry. Ideally, the recommendation will be directed toward the organization and consumer relations. According to McIntyre (2020), an author called Simon Sinek gave a remarkable talk at Technology, Design, and Entertainment (TED) Conference; in his speech, Sinek emphasized the need for companies to take passion in communicating the “Why” to the consumer. According to Sinek, when companies communicate a mission statement that they actually believe in, it resonates with the listener’s limbic brain; this, therefore, enhances brand trust and loyalty since the consumers no longer buy the product but the feeling of being part of the company.
Therefore, as Google and Microsoft keep advancing with technological innovations and the quest for market penetration, they must maintain customer relations by making their impression to serve consumers genuinely when communicating the “Why” or mission statement. Due to competition, companies might ignore consumers’ needs but work to outperform their competitors. The suggestion is that both companies invest in consumer behavior research and adjust to the current consumer needs to reinforce and maintain their relevance in the market. In conclusion, organizational success encompasses numerous factors and elements; ideally, more than just having the product or service to sell is needed to be successful in business. Therefore, organizations should spend time and utilize business analyzing tools to make adjustments and stay aligned for success.
References
Acs, Z. J., Song, A. K., Szerb, L., Audretsch, D. B., & Komlosi, E. (2021). The evolution of the global digital platform economy: 1971–2021. Small Business Economics, 57, 1629-1659.
Alblooshi, M., Shamsuzzaman, M., & Haridy, S. (2021). The relationship between leadership styles and organizational innovation: A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 338-370.
Dewar, C., Keller, S., & Malhotra, V. (2022). CEO excellence: The six mindsets that distinguish the best leaders from the rest. Simon and Schuster.
Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13(1), 215–246.
Gorwa, R., & Ash, T. G. (2020). Democratic transparency in the platform society. Social media and democracy: The state of the field and prospects for reform, pp. 286–312.
Isac, N., Dobrin, C., Raphalalani, L. P., & Sonko, M. (2021). Does organizational culture influence job satisfaction? A comparative analysis of two multinational companies. Revista de Management Comparat International, 22(2), 138-157.
Kock, N., Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., Sexton, S., & De La Garza, L. M. (2019). Empathetic leadership: How leader emotional support and understanding influences follower performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 217–236.
Kollstrøm, L. M. H. (2023). SharePoint Intranet as Internal Communication Solution to Internal Communication Issues.
Lal, B., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Haag, M. (2021). Working from home during Covid-19: doing and managing technology-enabled social interaction with colleagues at a distance. Information Systems Frontiers, pp. 1–18.
Leite, L., Kon, F., Pinto, G., & Meirelles, P. (2020, June). Platform teams: An organizational structure for continuous delivery. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops (pp. 505-511).
Lissillour, R., & Sahut, J. M. (2022). How to engage the crowd for innovation in a restricted market? A practice perspective of Google’s boundary spanning in China. Information Technology & People, 35(3), 977-1008.
Ly-Le, T. M. (2022). Hiring for gender diversity in tech. Journal of Management Development, 41(6), 393–403.
McIntyre, T. E. (2020). Gameday U: A Gameday Operations Application Business Plan.
write